|
|
Post by macnz on Aug 13, 2014 23:25:14 GMT 12
A Third OPV to come at cost of half IPV fleet? " Two of the four 180-foot IPVs, commissioned in 2009, could be swapped for a larger ship, said Defence Minister Jonathan Coleman [..] will put the case to Cabinet next year if the government wins next month’s election." Aug. 12, 2014 - 04:36PM Source: www.defensenews.com/article/20140812/DEFREG03/308120014/NZ-Navy-s-Newest-Ships-May-Short-LifeI'm all for a third OPV but got me wondering if we don't have enough personnel to man 4 IPVs, how does our Navy rotate its crews? - what is the typical manning ratio per vessel? Presume with a third OPV, NZ will rotate one in reserve/training/maintenance. If that is the case, then would not keeping 3 IPVs also be required logic? |
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Aug 14, 2014 20:21:34 GMT 12
I don't know the manning ratio for Otago and Wellington, but they do operate with much-reduced crews for the size of ship because of the amount of engine room automation. I think we get very good service out of the OPV's and they do very worthwhile work around NZ.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Aug 15, 2014 18:35:03 GMT 12
thanks Pete, I read somewhere on another blog that if a third OPV is pursued, a longer range model is desired. I wonder if STX Canada Marine has built a model exceeding 6000nm and over 1900 tonnes? At least Tenix, Williamstown can reapply what they have learned about ice-breaking and ballast to use for NZ.
Still curious as to whether NZ apply similar manning practices like the yanks - you know rotating gold and blue teams through the same vessel to get higher utilization.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Aug 16, 2014 8:24:46 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Apr 23, 2015 11:31:01 GMT 12
If future OPVs are designed with greater versatility to be multi-mission and more armament to protect and project then maybe ...but I remain a little sceptical you can build a combat platform economically. Look at the US and their LCS vessels which originally started out as multi mission littoral vessels and now being armoured up and re-categorised as Frigates for the Small Ship Combatant role in their Navy. Yes common platform but the production costs certainly going up. www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/blog/intercepts/2014/12/18/ship-navy-lcs/20589451/ Still think retaining a frigate/OPV mix is in our best interests to pursue and afford. If a third OPV needs to replace any vessel then replacement for HMNZS Manawanui for diving, anti-mining and ocean survey duties might be more easily met. Damen for example just announced an OPV-2 design - available in 75 m (1,400 tonnes), 85 m (1,800 tonnes), 95 m (2,400 tonnes), and 103 m (2,600 tonnes) to meet multi-mission roles. www.janes.com/article/50825/damen-introduces-new-opv-to-meet-demand-for-multimission-platforms |
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 23, 2015 20:20:43 GMT 12
Based on my own research the LCS were a fine concept that have suffered from Capability Creep. I agree that as a direct replacement for frigates the LCS or SSC won't work. I would make a case for smaller ships like Frigates and Corvettes based on the number to cost that could be produced in wartime. But a square is never going to fit into a circle. Purely from memory the LCS were designed to operate conditions up to Sea State 5.
In Peacetime frigates are the most sensible option for the main stay of the combat arm of the Navy. I do think that NZ military planners and political leaders have not paid enough attention to Littoral Warfare and MCW. Replacing the HMNZS Manawanui is a chance to go part of the way towards rectifying this. Mind you if its anything like the government's record on defence I wouldn't hold my breath (no pun intended).
|
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 18, 2015 22:36:20 GMT 12
Brits are developing a Littoral Support Ship, intended to have interchangeable mission modules like the Ozzie concept. I think theres similar European ones around too. My thinking is you have a few littoral ships, and mission modules including combat (LCS with missiles etc) and mine countermeasures. Both of them would have a fairly substantial gun like at least 40mm. Mine countermeasures can then be deployed with a littoral combat escort, with third or fourth ships on maintenance/standby. LCS also could support larger ships in shallow waters etc where pirates or smugglers might try to avoid the bigger frigates. They might be able to handle fisheries patrols in the Pacific while both OPVs focus more on the Southern Ocean. One aspect of the 4 frigate argument that also applies here is that you have to allow for attrition losses (hopefully survivable losses) as well as normal maintenance and work-up. Can't see there being a budget for it but a worthwhile contribution to a fleet.  Interesting is that the new British replenishment vessels apparently built in Korea... We should do that with the frigates! China's navy has 76 frigates and over 50 submarines... |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jun 19, 2015 18:44:12 GMT 12
The Danes are the pioneers (since 1980s) in interchangeable mission payload modules (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StanFlex). They now do this across 9 vessel classes in their navy. So if NZ wants to invest in the multi-mission capability, the most experience in design and operation will be found in Denmark. They also share similar demographic size to NZ thus understand the economics of optimizing a 'small' Navy with a small population. They are also faced with patrolling a vast EEZ (incl. Iceland and Arctic) with littoral, deep water, and arctic challenges. What I am saying is their operations philosophy is going to be very similar to our own (see: rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/22284/denmarks-newest-frigates-huitfeldt-class)I remain a big advocate in the Absalon/Iver Huitfeldt design for our frigate choice and sure their design could easily be scaled to supply a third OPV/littoral support vessel too. Yes interchangeable mission payload modules need to be the future Navy requirement because these capital platforms are expensive and will have a 30-40 year life span yet technology advances will continue at a frenetic pace and so some thought to module payload design is necessary for our navy to remain affordable, sustainable, and competitive into the future. If we can afford the funds and manpower I'd love to see our navy operating with 3 Iver Huitfeldt designed frigates and 1 Absalon-class support ship alongside our existing protector patrol fleet. |
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jan 19, 2016 15:45:17 GMT 12
Absalon etc are not milspec vessels, so best to learn from the concepts and put the ideas into survivable hulls than to just copy them.
|
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Jan 19, 2016 17:35:32 GMT 12
From discussions I’ve had with some of the officers who man the OPVs and my own experience in travelling from Auckland to the sub-Antarctic on one of them, I get the impression that they are relatively lightly-built and so are probably not up to “milspec” either. However, for the valuable work they do it may not be as important as it would be for the frigates, and ice-strengthening is probably be of greater importance.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Jan 25, 2016 0:40:09 GMT 12
Now I am intrigued - what exactly is the definition/criteria of 'Milspec' that we are referring to?
The KDM/RDN have a longstanding and prestigious history of building warships since the 15th Century up to today so kinda surprising that their Absalon design is suggested to be not up to military-spec. The Iver Huitfeldt class and Knud Rasmussen class are also certainly 'milspec'. If NZ opted to buy a Knud Rasmussen class OPV (the Danes are building a third one to be launched in 2017). Its a mature design, affordable and we could be assured of its operability and interdiction abilities in the Antarctic. Its payloads would also be interoperable with a Iver Huitfeldt class frigate should we ever decide to replace our ANZACs with that design. Lets not get ahead of ourselves though. Replenishment vessel & Littoral vessel first, then its 3rd OPV and Frigates. Pretty big (but necessary) procurement list to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Jan 25, 2016 13:00:39 GMT 12
Now I am intrigued - what exactly is the definition/criteria of 'Milspec' that we are referring to? Haha - you've got me there! I just presumed (from the post I was answering) that there was some sort of military standard for naval ships and it probably meant heavier construction than a commercial ship. |
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Feb 7, 2016 1:30:02 GMT 12
Now I am intrigued - what exactly is the definition/criteria of 'Milspec' that we are referring to? Haha - you've got me there! I just presumed (from the post I was answering) that there was some sort of military standard for naval ships and it probably meant heavier construction than a commercial ship. The US seem to have some quite well defined levels of survivability specified for their warships, also related to the scope creep of their littoral ship designs due to debates about their survivability. Part of it is being able to take damage while still fighting, so there is a level of redundancy built into many of the systems and cabling. Some of the bigger ships have a "dual island" configuration that adds to the level of system redundancy. |
|
